I am a bit surprised that no one has seemed to pick up on Judge Luttig’s comment about the “Clear and Present Danger” presented by the MAGA crowd. Given the extreme care with which he chose his words, that phrase IMHO should have evoked a strong response.
“Clear and Present Danger” is the legal language that justifies a suspension of a speaker’s First Amendment rights of free speech. According to the Legal Information Institute:
“The clear and present danger test originated in Schenck v. the United States. The test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil.
Requirements:
The clear and present danger test features two independent conditions: first, the speech must impose a threat that a substantive evil might follow, and second, the threat is a real, imminent threat. The court had to identify and quantify both the nature of the threatened evil and the imminence of the perceived danger.” www.law.cornell.edu/…
That Judge Luttig used this language suggests an avenue for going after some of those who use the media to incite riots, insurrection, secession, etc. I am a strong First Amendment believer, but recognize such limits as falsely yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. The ‘Clear and Present Danger’ test may apply in many of the situations arising from the Jan 6 insurrection.
The judge’s language at least deserves some discussion and consideration.